1. Complaint No. 328 of 1998 was filed by the Respondent Complainant in respect of allotment of Plot No. 586, Block - E, Panki, Kanpur by the Petitioner Development Authority. According to the Complainant he had been called upon for the said allotment and he was promised possession but it was not given to him. The allotment seems to have been cancelled and the plot was allotted to one Mr. Jaspal Singh Bhatia. Aggrieved the Complaint was filed and the Development Authority appeared and filed their response. After considering the same it was held that the claim was not barred by limitation and that even otherwise the amount deposited by the Complainant had not been refunded to him and hence he was entitled for possession of the plot.

2. However since the plot had already been allotted to another person a direction was given while allowing the Complaint to allot some alternative plot to the Complainant in terms thereof and Rs.10,000/- was imposed as compensation.

3. The Development Authority filed an Appeal assailing the said Order dated 25.07.2000 passed by the District Commission. First Appeal No. 2000 of 2000 came to be decided after 22 years on 02.05.2022 and the Appeal was dismissed upholding the Order of the District Commission. The Order having been passed on 02.05.2022 no further steps seems to have been taken for filing a Revision Petition before this Commission. IA No. 4315 of 2026 is the delay condonation Application filed with this Revision Petition stating therein that a Miscellaneous Application had been filed with regard to the substitution of the Respondent who had died on which Orders were passed on 19.09.2024. The orders passed on the Miscellaneous Application was delivered to the Petitioner on 30.06.2025 and that the free copy of the Original Order dated 02.05.2022 had not been received. It is after a receipt of the free copy of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed on the Miscellaneous Application that the Petitioner came to know of the dismissal of the Appeal itself.

4. It is then stated that the steps were taken thereafter and according to the above noted facts also the filing of this Revision Petition is delayed by further 202 days.

5. The prayer made is to condone the delay of 1357 days in filing the Revision against the Order dated 02.05.2022, the delay of 486 days in filing the Revision Petition questioning the Order dated 19.09.2024 and once the delay of 401 days in filing the subsequent miscellaneous order dated 13.12.2024.

6. Having considered all the submissions and having perused the delay condonation application it is more than obvious that the Appeal itself had been filed by the Petitioner Development Authority and was argued by Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel. The order was delivered on 02.05.2022. There is nothing in the Application to indicate that the lawyer of the Development Authority was not aware of the delivery of the orders. It is therefore presumptuous to believe that the Petitioner did not know of the dismissal of the Appeal from 2022 to 2025. The lawyer also must have charged his fee for final hearing and to say that the free copy was received in 2025 is a mere excuse and not an explanation. The delay certainly is of 1357 days for which there is no valid explanation.

7. Reference be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

                          "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

                          31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse".

                          Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

                          32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

8. In the absence of any cogent and plausible reason the delay condonation application has no merits and is accordingly rejected.

9. The Revision Petition also stands dismissed.